Talk:Crack Team

Ultimate Battle Set - Legend of Dramon Set & Neo Metal Empire Set Booklets

If someone has access to/scans from these booklets, is there an actual section on the Crack Team itself? --Ainz ^{( talk | contribs )} 07:25, 5 August 2017 (CDT)

Related

• Chimairamon is thought to either have been built as a prototype for Mugendramon or as a weapon against it.
• Andromon's profile states its technology was appropriated for MetalGreymon and Megadramon, which could possibly imply it was done by the same people, but the word used (流用) has connotations of theft, so the implication is that the tech was instead plagiarized by the Crack Team. This follows with HiAndromon and Boltmon.
• Gigadramon's profile talks about how it was developed alongside/simultaneously with Megadramon, so I think that one's about as clear as any of the Vulcanusmon references.
• Going on from the Andromon profile, the MetalGreymon profiles use language that implies that they are doing the modifications to themselves (ex. it was the MetalGreymon who were able to extend their lifespan)

While Mugendramon's profile takes kind of the opposite tack as Andromon's, implying that the people who developed it also developed both Andromon and MetalGreymon even though those species individual profiles imply the opposite, (1) Mugendramon's profile itself does not assign it to the Crack Team, and its assignment there was instead done many years after these profiles were put out, and (2) Mugendramon's profile talks about how "someone" (implied to be someone stealing Mugendramon and corrupting it) is responsibile for turning its DigiCore evil. So that, alongside Chimairamon's profile and how Andromon's profile talks about "appropriation", paint a very different picture that makes a lot more sense for a black-hat hacker "crack" group -- normal scientists developed the other Cyborg Digimon not explicitly stated to be part of the Crack Team, and the Crack Team stole their work for their own Megadramon/Gigadramon pair, and corrupted Mugendramon. It's still bizarre that the explicitly purifying Aegisdramon is assigned to the explicitly malicious Crack Team, but whatevs.

So, in summary, Chimairamon should be rephrased as "possibly or possibly not", Gigadramon should go ahead and be listed as a member, and the others should definitely be removed because the lore actually points in the direction of the Crack Team stealing Mugendramon, rather than developing him themselves.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2020 (CDT)

Four years later, reiterating this critique. This image and this report kind of illustrate what I'm saying -- according to the Report, the "official members" are Chaosdramon, Mugendramon, Gundramon, MetalTyranomon, Megadramon, Gigadramon, MetalSeadramon, GigaSeadramon, and Aegisdramon. The relationship chart labels the rectangle "digimon employed by humans" instead of "Crack Team", and explains that it's focusing on Digimon that the Crack Team "prefers to employ", which is not quite the same thing (and oddly leaves out Gundramon, despite its profile being one that does clearly identify it as a member). It includes Chaosdramon, Mugendramon, HiAndromon, MetalSeadramon, GigaSeadramon, and Aegisdramon directly, and then has a white rectangle cutout to show relations to other Digimon, with the specific term "Technology appropriated for" connecting Andromon and Boltmon. While Megadramon, Gigadramon, and MetalTyrannomon have been validated by other sources as being part of the Crack Team (Re:Digitize card set and the Report, for example), MetalMamemon, MetalGreymon, Andromon, and Boltmon have not, and the formatting used indicates that it's not necessarily claiming they're part of the Crack Team -- just that they're related to the lore of the group. While it's possible they were all developed by the Crack Team, with the given sources it's also possible they weren't, and I think it's improper to make this claim in the wiki's voice. Instead, I think they should be listed as Related Digimon, like Bacchusmon and Chimairamon.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (CST)

I think making a distinction between "a member of the Crack Team" and "employed by the Crack Team" is just unnecessary semantics. If we're going to be specific, the Crack Team's actual members are the humans, and the Digimon are just the humans' tools. As such, there is no actual distinction between the membership statuses of the Digimon. It's just that some of them have specified field roles, while others are more generic or just serve as prototypical testbeds.

Also, an issue with your point about the relationship chart's cutouts is that the cutouts are still within the overall box containing the Crack Team members. The cutouts aren't separating them from the group, but categorizing their relations with each other within the same group. Case in point, look at the other groups within the chart. The Devas are all in four separate cutouts based on their relations to the Four Holy Beasts, but they're all still Devas within the Deva box. The Three Archangels are also within the Angel Army box. --YongYoKyo (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2024 (CST)

I don't think it's unnecessary semantics. Outside of this artbook, MetalMamemon, MetalGreymon, Andromon, and Boltmon are not suggested to be part of the Crack Team, and are repeatedly described as if they are general purpose Cyborg Digimon. The franchise has had many opportunities to explicitly include them, and this is the closest it has gotten. As for getting specific, "Crack Team" has been treated as a Group or trait repeatedly. Regarding the cutouts -- I specified it being a white cutout, implying negative space specifically to highlight how it differentiates itself from those other cutouts in other groupings. Basically, I don't think this one artbook scan is clearly, incontrovertibly designating these four Digimon as members of the Crack Team, and I think the wiki is pushing into risky speculation when it makes these claims in an authoritative voice.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2025 (CDT)

Being general purpose Cyborg Digimon and being Digimon used by the Crack Team are not mutually exclusive. You're also ignoring the fact that Megadramon, Gigadramon, and MetalTyranomon are also grouped with them, and they have been explicitly noted as members of the Crack Team multiple times. The 'white' box is still within the border of the overall box with a literal label specifying "Digimon employed by the Crack Team". If they wanted to separate them, they would've had them as overlapping boxes with separate labels, not one box within the other under a single label with this 'negative space' nonsense. Moreover, the inner box isn't actually white. The actual physical chart at the anniversary museum has the box in a pale cream color, not white. It's clearly just meant to provide contrast between the layered sub-groupings. The fan-made translated image you referenced just made it white.

In addition, if you look closely, the cream box has an actual categorical purpose. The arrow pointing to Mugendramon is extending from the cream box itself. It's denoting every Digimon used to assemble Mugendramon, which includes Andromon (and evidently Boltmon). It's just that within that grouping, it is further separated into early prototypes and more recent prototypes, with the former contributing to the latter, and both subsequently contributing to Mugendramon overall. It has nothing to do with implying negative space; otherwise, the arrow would be extending directly from the pink and/or violet boxes.--YongYoKyo (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

Just dropping in to inform that the box is not cream-coloured in the official 25th Anniversary Book. ShikaSS (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

It seems disingenuous to not also mention that the chart in the 25th book simplified most of the color diversity in general. Boxes within boxes are just different shades of the same color (akin to a monochromatic filter), unlike the rainbow hues of the original chart. --YongYoKyo (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

How so? You're right to point out that there is less in-box color variation in the 25th Anniversary Book, but that is not the case for the box on discussion here. The box containing Mugen's components/Andro & Bolt is not a different shade of the "Digimon Employed by Humans" box; it's simply white. I agree with your point that distinguishing between "members of the Crack Team" and "Digimon employed by the Crack Team" is not worthwhile. My only intention to come with this info was to disprove "the fan-made translated image you referenced just made it white", which leaves a lot of implications, were it true. ShikaSS (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

The box on discussion here is specifically about the original colorful rendition. The white box in the context of the colorful rendition is a fan-made design choice that has never been used officially. You're referring to the white box in the context of an altered monochromatic rendition. A pale light hue being turned into white through a monochromatic conversion is meaningless and irrelevant to the intentional choice of white in a multi-colored context. You're cherry-picking from a completely different context and reapplying it to a context where it doesn't apply (and not mentioning the difference in context), which is why it's disingenuous.--YongYoKyo (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

It is a change that affects the interpretation of that portion of the chart, as evidenced by this discussion. Whether it was done intentionally, by oversight or by a careless adaptation of a colorful context to a monochromatic context, that's a different subject, but it is absolutely not meaningless and irrelevant. ShikaSS (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

@Shika408, YongYoKyo is probably referring to [this https://youtu.be/LW3PsHDD1pY?t=798]. I will point out thought that the cream > white change was maintained in Korean releases of the chart.

"You're also ignoring the fact that Megadramon, Gigadramon, and MetalTyranomon are also grouped with them" -- I'm not, I specifically highlighted that and explained my reasoning about it. We've also seen other versions of this type of graph which differentiate many of the group from the Crack Team. Especially given the Crack Team's nature, I don't think it's safe to treat that bubble as a black/white threshold like with the Royal Knights or other groups on the page.

"'negative space' nonsense" -- Just to check, are you familiar with the concept of negative space?

"In addition, if you look closely, the cream box has an actual categorical purpose." -- I discussed that as well.

"(and evidently Boltmon)" -- as I said earlier, this is one of the indications that that portion of the chart is indicating relationships rather than membership. Boltmon is firmly established within the canon to not be a component of Mugendramon - and even here it simply lists Boltmon as a Digimon whose "technology was appropriated for" the other set.

"Being general purpose Cyborg Digimon and being Digimon used by the Crack Team are not mutually exclusive" -- No, they are not. I think you're misunderstanding my point here -- I'm not saying they definitely can't be members of the Crack Team. I'm saying that the preponderance of sources, the standard "language" of a social graph, and even the specific phrasing used in this chart give pretty strong support to the chart not necessarily meaning what the wiki is claiming it's saying, and that it's an instance of risky speculation (similar to earlier claims the wiki made that Cerberumon's profile was specifically referencing Digital World Iliad, and others) that the wiki should probably not make. My feeling is that the wiki is stretching past solid, citable claims into headcanon, and when it's done that in the past it's caused messes because the authors aren't always trying to make all the connections we assume they are.

"I agree with your point that distinguishing between "members of the Crack Team" and "Digimon employed by the Crack Team" is not worthwhile." -- Seekers defines SoC as an offshoot of the Crack Team. If we don't make that differentiation, then we should add Loogamon & its evolutions, Tyrannomon, Dorumon & its evolutions, BlackAgumon, and Airdramon.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

I am aware of the chart YongYoKyo was referring to, yes. Regarding your Seekers points, in my opinion, that is only relevant for Seekers' iteration of the Crack Team. ShikaSS (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

the specific picture to me is saying the crack team took those guys to make machinedramon (so metalmamemon etc arent part of the group, but they basiclaly killed those guys and turned them into machinedramon). andromon/boltmon seem fair as theyre early prototypes created by the crack team. the five guys who are part of machinedramon, in the group chart at least, isnt really saying theyre members of the crack team. just that machinedramon was made by them using those 5 guys. tho id say its also pretty clear on that part where the crack team literally stole a bunch of data to make their own robot digimon.Muur (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

"We've also seen other versions of this type of graph which differentiate many of the group from the Crack Team."

No, what you just cited doesn't differentiate them actually. You seem to be overlooking a particular characteristic of these charts: the start and end points of the arrows. The arrows are very particular. If it's pointing to a Digimon, it directly touches the border of the Digimon's artwork. If it's pointing to a group as a whole (or a subgroup within a group), then it touches the border of the overall box. In the chart you just referenced, you can see this particularity in action. The arrow between the Crack Team's leader and Chaosdramon are directly connecting them as individuals. The other arrow only connects Crack Team (as a whole) with the Metal Empire (as a whole). It's not pointing to MetalSeadramon specifically, if that's what you're insinuating. In fact, this just means that this is another chart that connects Andromon, Boltmon, MetalMamemon, and MetalGreymon (rather, the entirety of Metal Empire) with the Crack Team.

"Boltmon is firmly established within the canon to not be a component of Mugendramon"

What is established is that Boltmon did not directly contribute a specific bodypart. The fact that Boltmon contributed technologies to the creation of the other prototypes inherently means that it subsequently contributed technologies to Mugendramon's creation as well. Boltmon's contribution to Mugendramon is just more 'processed' than the others. --YongYoKyo (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2025 (CDT)

"It's not pointing to MetalSeadramon specifically, if that's what you're insinuating. "

It's not what I'm saying. To clarify, it differentiates that grouping from the Crack Team. The older chart has essentially the same list of Digimon as in the separated boxes in the newer chart but groups them as Metal Empire, and then has that arrow you mentioned commenting that the Crack Team modified and developed many of them - but the relationships ex. between Boltmon and the others are presented as independent of any of their usage by the Crack Team. So it's presented that an unspecified number of them can be members of the Crack Team, but not necessarily all of them.

"Boltmon's contribution to Mugendramon is just more 'processed' than the others"

The newer chart differentiates between being a component of Mugendramon, and having technologies appropriated. The earlier chart simply says Boltmon and Andromon were built in tandem (implicitly with similar design philosophies), and the newer chart is essentially simplifying that portion of the earlier chart. This is why I'm of the belief that the article is potentially misinterpreting the newer chart.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2025 (CDT)

Once again, you're disregarding an important aspect of the charts: the particularity. How particular the charts are leaves little to no room for misinterpretation. Arrows are carefully connected. Labels are carefully labelled. For example, the label for the Four Symbols specifies Huanglongmon as 'The Emperor' instead of generalizing the whole group as the Four Symbols. On the Crack Team side, notice how both charts never actually label the Digimon as the 'Crack Team'. There's only a description and/or an arrow denoting them as 'Digimon employed by the Crack Team', with the Crack Team clearly distinguished as a separate organization (presumably made up of humans) in both charts.

Smaller boxes within larger boxes do not exclude Digimon from the larger box. Boltmon is not presented independently from the Digimon employed by the Crack Team, because the arrow is pointing to the entire box which includes Boltmon. Sure, maybe the wording implies that not all of the Digimon are members, but what it still indicates is that Boltmon is just as much a potential member as any of the other Digimon within the box.

The only thing the smaller sub-boxes indicate are the interrelations between the members within the same larger box. Any labels applied to the larger box applies to all the smaller sub-boxes within that box. If they wanted to exclude members outside of their relevant sub-box, the arrow or label would point only to the relevant sub-box alone. Yes, the early prototypes are distinguished from the newer prototypes, but the arrow denoting Mugendramon's components doesn't distinguish between them. It's touching the entire box encompassing both sub-groups, not one or the other. Thus, Boltmon is—once again—included in this instance.

The only uncertainties are the [etc.] entries in the older chart (which only indicates the presence of more unspecified members), and the exclusion of confirmed members from a group (i.e. Gundramon), but including a Digimon within a group is not an uncertainty. It's evident at this point that your issue isn't a matter of misinterpretation; it's a matter of you disagreeing with parts of the chart itself. You think the chart is inaccurate and are applying your own personal corrections to it. The uncorrected version then becomes a 'potential misinterpretation'. --YongYoKyo (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2025 (CDT)

being "employed" by them would depend how theyre employed. if youre actually hired, youre a member. but it could be like hiring a freelancer to create a logo for you, where youre paid by them but not actually working for them, so not a member. so depends on contextMuur (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2025 (CDT)

As far as the chart is concerned, there is no distinction in how they're 'employed'. As I said, both charts specify that 'Crack Team' specifically refers to a separate group of human crackers. According to the chart, none of the Digimon are actually formal 'members'. These Digimon are all equally employed (or 'equally employable', if you find that more accurate) by the Crack Team. If we're citing the chart as a source, we can't just only nitpick certain parts of the chart as credible and other parts as inaccurate, or correct the chart according to a personal interpretation of the lore.

From what I can tell, this whole argument stems from the belief that being a 'prototype' or 'test bed' is not a proper role and does not qualify membership (I'd argue beta testing is a proper occupation), as well as the bias that the 'appropriation of technology' means that the original technology doesn't belong to the Crack Team. This is not necessarily true, as what is being stolen from is the project (i.e. the Digimon), not the group itself. Members of the same group can appropriate other members' work from other projects for their own project; it would all still be within the same group.--YongYoKyo (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2025 (CDT)